TR EMERITUS

By Lim Mun Fah from Sin Chew Daily Singapore used to be a Chinese educational bastion for Southeast Asia with the most comprehensive Chinese-language educational system. But the deviation of its educational policy had changed everything in just two to three decades. Nanyang University, a leading Chinese university in Southeast Asia for 25 years, became part of the history in 1980. As nearly 100% of students were enrolled in English stream primary schools, English became the first language for all primary and secondary schools in Singapore. Since then, Chinese education had basically disappeared from Singapore, leaving only Chinese language teaching. Under such a circumstances, the Chinese language standard of the new generation of Chinese Singaporeans is low, it is not surprising even to hear some of them saying: “I hate Chinese.” However, the Singapore government has carried out many reforms in Chinese language teaching over the past 40 years. A Chinese speaking campaign has also been carried out with the hope to change the habit of speaking dialects in Chinese families and make Chinese a common language for them. However, just as Singaporean scholar Lee Guan Kin said: “The closures of Chinese primary and secondary schools, as well as the Nanyang University, together with the deviations of the bilingual educational system had rapidly deteriorated the soil quality of Chinese language and culture in Singapore, causing a significant cultural gap phenomenon.” Therefore, a few decades after the Chinese speaking campaign was launched, even though the country is now having fewer Chinese Singaporeans who speak dialects, Chinese is still unable to replace dialects as the communication language in Chinese families. Instead, there is a rapid increase in the number of Chinese students speaking English at home. The latest data shows that the number of students who speak English at home has increased to the current 60% from 10% in 1980. What are the far-reaching impact when Chinese families are no longer the mainstream? An editorial from Zaobao said that Singapore may someday become a single English society. Singapore's Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew is aware of the seriousness of the crisis, he said that they should start from the actual situation of the students, including to teach Chinese in English and having more creative Chinese teaching methods to enhance student's interest in Chinese language. Standing on the opposite shore, we are watching the decline of Chinese education in Singapore. We always think that the fundamental factor that causes the problem is the status of Chinese language in the country. Although the rapid rise of China has made the Singapore government to encourage its people to learn Chinese and improve their Chinese teaching methods, it is worth pondering whether it is correct to learn Chinese based on the motive of economic interests instead of emphasising the language's cultural value and meaning. The Singapore government had neglected Chinese while the Malaysia government had neglected English over the past few decades and clearly, they had paid a heavy price for their educational policies. This is what we called “it is easy to damage but it is hard to build” and “as you sow, so will you reap”! - mysinchew.com Republished from Sin Chew Daily on 25 November 2009  Read More →

By Debra Chong from The Malaysian Insider Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim won his defamation suit against the New Straits Times today. The High Court today ruled that the daily may have had “sinister” motives behind an article it published seven years ago which linked Anwar financially to powerful US lobbyist, Douglas H. Paal. But the court noted that the RM100 million Anwar is seeking in damages was a gross exaggeration. The court ruled that Anwar can only claim RM100,000 as compensation from the daily, plus another RM20,000 in costs. An interest rate of eight per cent shall be added to the amount. Asked if the paper would appeal the High Court’s decision, NST’s lawyers said they have to wait for their client’s orders first. Lawyer for Anwar, Karpal Singh, told reporters that money was not the issue and they had not expected to get the RM100 million sum. “It’s a matter of principle here,” said Karpal, who is also the DAP chairman. He added that Anwar had been cleared of corruption charges by the national anti-graft body ages ago, pointing to the testimony on Nov 11 from its then-director of investigations, Abdul Razak Idris. High Court judge Harmindar Singh Dhalliwal, in reading out his 45-page decision, reasoned that the writer had failed to prove “fair, disinterested and neutral” intent when writing the article. He noted that today’s case was not only a defamation suit but “also about freedom of expression and the related role of the media”. The NST article purported to show how Anwar — then the deputy prime minister — had used public funds to pay a former adviser to then-US President George HW Bush through a series of bilateral dialogues arranged by Paal’s think tank, called Asia Pacific Policy Centre (APPC), in a bid to promote his image abroad, especially in the US and Europe. The paper’s former deputy group editor, Rose Ismail, now a media consultant, had stepped forward on Nov 11 and admitted to being the author of the anonymous article headlined “Anwar’s link to US lobbyist”, published on March 2, 2002. While giving evidence under oath, Rose — named SD1 in the trial — claimed qualified privilege as a news agency to provide information on a matter of public interest at that time. She added that she was only reproducing an article from an American magazine, The New Republic. But the judge ruled that the topic of the article was not urgent enough and Rose had skipped checking the facts for herself. He warned that the standard of care for American reporters is much lower than anywhere else in the world and they could even “get away with publishing false news”. He said that she could and should have tried to interview the main players in the story, namely Anwar; Paal; and a former senior Bank Negara official whose statutory declaration had kickstarted corruption investigations on Anwar, who was also the finance minister then. “I think that if you are going to print something serious and discreditable about someone, it is elementary fairness that you seek a response. “I therefore think that for the defendants to rely almost solely on The New Republic magazine without any verification was poor journalism,” he said. The judge added that the article ended up showing a one-sided view which did not benefit the public. “I also do not think that this is a neutral report because what SD1 is trying to do, as she herself admits, is to explore the links between APPC, Douglas Paal, the funding by the Malaysian government and the plaintiff,” Harmindar said of Rose’s testimony. “Her intention, thereof, is not mere neutral reporting but to assert something more sinister on the part of the plaintiff than what had appeared in The New Republic article. I am therefore unable to accept her subsequent assertions that her article was a mere reproduction,” he added. - The Malaysian Insider Republished from The Malaysian Insider on 25 November 2009  Read More →

作者：《新加坡文献馆》 09年5月的一份亚洲大学排名榜上香港中文大学名列第2。从香港中大的学术成就回头看看新加坡的华文教育历史，难免不会令人感叹南洋大学的命运是何许悲惨。香港中大成立于1963年是香 港政府资助并获授权颁发学位的高等学府。回顾南大历史，1963年正是南大面临多事之秋的年代，大学领导和师生倍受李光耀的人民行动党政府的百般刁难。探讨新加坡历史的学者必然会追究，为何香港的白人政府会让中大生存并成长，而华裔李光耀在新加坡却是反其道而行极力防止南大的正常发展？ 中大创校校长李卓敏解释取名中文大学是意指传扬中国文化的大学。李校长在1978年的19届毕业典礼上发言时指出：凡是大学都不可能脱离本身民族的背景。因此，中国或海外华侨创办的大学都是中文大学…每一所大学都是沟通本国和外国文化的桥梁…那是理所当然的。在这一文化层面上，历史学者也必然会追究为何对香港中大是件理所当然之事，对南洋大学却是那么的有违常理？ 近日新加坡华文媒体大篇幅报导王庚武的呼吁：让新加坡成为东南亚的中国 以及华人研究的重镇。这一声音对熟悉南大历史的东南亚华人而言，不仅仅显得刺耳更是对历史的极大讽刺。回想当年要不是王庚武报告书剥夺了南大的学术自主权从而彻底摧毁了南大的自由成长契机，那么一个能够自力更生的南大，在庄竹林的办校计划下新加坡早已成为在东南亚的中国与华人历史的研究重镇。这是因为创办东南亚研究院以探讨中文古籍中的东南亚历史就是庄竹林的办校五大方针之一。 1963年李光耀剥夺南大创办人陈六使的公民权，进而逼使陈老辞去大学领导的职权。陈六使的罪名是南大毕业生与在籍学生涉及共产党与反政府活动。之后，新南大理事会同意按政府意向改组南大。1965年大学委任以王庚武为首的课程审查委员会进行全面改组南大。王庚武报告书是为李光耀的政治目的服务，其宗旨是剥夺大学的学术自主权以约束南大发展空间；其结果确是让南大很难长大。 在这场政治斗争中李光耀全面征服了华文知识分子的最高学府。回头看看历史，历史学者也难免要追问，李光耀又或者是人民行动党从这一政治过程中得到了些什么？而新加坡社会在这起摧毁文化教育的事件中又失去了些什么？这个问题并不难解答，因为从香港中大的学术成就中就可以体会到新加坡整体社会失去了些什么？新加坡失去的是一所可以和香港中大一般优秀的东南亚华人民办大学。 假如南大有和香港中大等同的学术自由机会，换言之，南大从来没有受到王庚武报告书的干扰和约束则庄竹林的南大办校计划得以施行，那么庄竹林办理的南洋大学应该是可以如香港中大一样成为一所成功的大学。 庄竹林博士在1960年2月出任南洋大学校长，之后于1964年7月8日被迫离职。庄竹林在1964年4月1日的一篇短文《日日新，又日新》是庄竹林针对南洋大学的未来办校而提出的5点发展意见。（详情见南洋大学史实之《庄竹林的新新计划》一文） 庄竹林的南洋大学是一所什么样的大学？ 1：一所中英并重的双语文文化大学 2：马来语文与文化学习中心 3：东南亚语言学习中心 4：文理商三院之外增设工学院（以及其他专业课程） 5：东南亚研究学院，是东南亚学之学术研究中心。 南洋大学，逝者已矣！这或许就是人民行动党政府清算传统华文教育所必须支付的社会成本。如今的南洋理工大学有意改名南洋大学，然而所谓的南大复名运动肯定是改变不了新加坡的这一段华文教育历史。  Read More →